Best of all possible worlds and atheism

Post Reply New Topic

@Ruveyn

If you think I am incorrect don't just use an appeal to authority. Demonstrate a flaw in my statement 'An enthymemic premise is invalid because it renders the argument invalid'. As Orwell has continually indicated pressed me to state 'the inference is correct'. You two are just being legalistic with your jargon.

Let's make a simple argument

1. All enthymemic premises render an argument invalid.
2. This means that the premise itself is the source of the invalidity
3. Therefor all enthymemic premises are invalid.

Last edited by 91 on 09 Feb 2011, 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oops ...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dolt

Let us all now go back and make some edits ...

Last edited by leejosepho on 10 Feb 2011, 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

A premise can be neither valid nor invalid. You are simply wrong. An argument can be invalid if it's missing a premise, but a premise itself is not. You do not seem to understand the distinction, and that is a serious problem.


Philosophy? This is a question of basic logic. I'm drawing on my background in formal mathematics here.


Actually, it does not. Let's go back to the OP and see what AG wrote:

This is essentially a restatement of the argument put forward by Leibniz, and which is broadly accepted in modern Calvinism. There is no missing premise whatsoever. The discussion AG asked for was how people should respond to this argument, as he believes the conclusion ("this is the best of all possible worlds") to be false. In short:
1 AND 2 AND 3 imples 4.
NOT 4.
Therefore, NOT (1 AND 2 AND 3)

Since we have NOT (1 AND 2 AND 3) only one of premises 1-3 need be rejected. Alternately, one could claim that the conclusion is in fact true, that this is the best of all possible worlds.


The evidential argument is used only to state "Premise 4 is false." There is no missing premise in there at all. The counter that you attempted (and utterly failed) to articulate was that 4 is true because the metric of what is "best" is from God's perspective, and makes no sense whatsoever to humans. AG rejected this as ad hoc and implausible, certainly less plausible than the claim that this world could be better. You then retreated into several pages of incoherent gibberish and inappropriately cited regurgitations of Craig.


My use of "jargon" (I don't see how the most basic vocabulary is "jargon," but whatever) is entirely correct. It is relevant because you were confusing premises with inferences and reaching ridiculous conclusions about what was and was not legitimate.


You just criticized ruveyn for an argument from authority, despite the fact that he actually cited a legitimate authority (a textbook on introductory logic is not going to make the same kind of obvious errors that you are making).


Actually, AG's argument did not cite suffering at all. You are the one who brought suffering into it. AG was even quite explicit in stating that the issue wasn't the mere existence of suffering, but the existence of greater evil than is absolutely necessary. Hence "best of all possible worlds" is not equivalent to "a world with no suffering whatsoever."


Except that a premise was not missing. The statement (1 AND 2 AND 3) implies 4 is broadly accepted in theological circles to this day as a valid inference, leading to a range of Christian apologetics from Leibniz on to the modern day attempting to establish that this is, in fact, the best of all possible worlds. The discussion AG seemed to want was whether affirming the conclusion (4: the actual world is the best of all possible worlds) was more realistic than denying one or more of the premises (e.g. denying God's existence, omnipotence, and/or omnibenevolence).


For you to learn to read at a middle-school level and be able to follow basic logic without wasting 8 pages now on your grotesque and elementary mistakes.


You're flat wrong if you think this issue does not remain a serious theological question to this day. Despite what your favorite evangelical huckster may proclaim, it has not been laid to rest.

Actually, Ruveyn, the justifying issue of 3 is that while God may have the POWER to do anything, he may not have the CHARACTER to allow himself to do anything. This goes back to what one might say about "God cannot lie". While God likely has the POWER to create symbols or sounds that would be conveyed by the listener/reader as a falsehood, his character would not allow this. #3 just implies that God is perfectly good by nature, and thus cannot do evil.



I don't think people are necessarily making that mistake. I could say that a better world wouldn't have people starving to death and dying of AIDS in Africa. That does not mean that African suffering really makes my life worse. Orwell cited the removal of several diseases, even though I don't think he believes it likely that he will get infected with any of those diseases(I can't remember the diseases off-hand though).

that's the most offensive attempt at a definition i've ever read. no doubt, the dolt who wrote it was proud of that. dictionary.com gives "a dull, stupid person; blockhead." which is, pretty much, what orwell was saying. sure, it would have been more polite for orwell to just say "you're doing it wrong" and then explain what, exactly, is being done wrong - wait, that's..... pretty much, what he did.

is dolt insulting? yes. does it mean "A mental ret*d who is clueless not only about current events, but also has the IQ level of a rock. "Dolt" may be the most sophisticated insult in the English language. Dolts commonly populate such stereotypes as jocks, nerds, fruits, bookworms, and dorks." as the top listing at your link states. perhaps some editing is in order.

May I please note as relevant to the discussion the fact that 91 has failed in constructing a valid argument on 3 occasions:

Occasion 1: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3356763 ... t=#3356763
1) God created the world.
2) God can only actualize logically possible worlds.
i. There is evil in this world.
3) God must sufficient reason for creating this world.
4) Therefor from 1&2 God does have a sufficient reason.

The failure is that premise 2 is actually irrelevant. Now, in constructing an argument, it makes no sense to include premises that have no validity to the conclusion. If I saw an author who made an argument like this:
1) Socrates is a man.
2) I had tuna for lunch yesterday.
3) Men are mortal.
4) Therefore Socrates is mortal (1 and 3)

I'd think either the man was joking, or he did not know what the hell he was doing. In 91's case, we don't have reason to believe that he jokingly inserted an irrelevant premise. Therefore, we have reason to think that he does not know what the hell he is doing.
1) If a person includes an irrelevant premise in a logical argument, then either he is joking or does not know what he is doing.
2) 91 did this and was not joking.
3) Therefore 91 does not know what the hell he is doing.

Also, please note that in the context, premise 1 of 91's argument was currently being contested. This undermines the value of the contribution of the argument. (Note: to be fair, we can say that 91 made a typo in constructing that argument.)

That being said, premises 1 and 3, therefore 4, actually does work, so he isn't being entirely stupid on this instance.

Occasion 2: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3357275 ... t=#3357275
1. God is all powerful and all loving.
2. God must have a sufficient reason for the level of evil in the world.
3. Therefor through 1&2 God has a sufficient reason.

As can be noted, premise 1 is irrelevant to the question of "sufficient reason". Instead, the argument really only uses premise 2, and premise 2, is actually the same as the conclusion in 3.

So, what we really have is this:
1) God must have a sufficient reason for the level of evil in the world.
2) Therefore God has a sufficient reason.

Now, 2 follows from 1, but it fails completely as a logical argument.

If it were presented like this:
1) God exists.
2) If God exists, God must have a sufficient reason for the level of evil in the world.
3) Therefore God has a sufficient reason.

Then it would work, but presuming God exists in a conversation where that premise is being contested is not generally acceptable, as the argument, even if valid, is not rationally coercive or persuasive as the person it is being presented to already does not believe one of the premises.

Occasion 3: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3363665 ... t=#3363665

1. God created the world
2. God can actualize only logical possible worlds
3. There is suffering in the world
4. Due to 1-3 God logically Must have a reason for the level of suffering

Once again, this is a failed argument. Premise 2 is unnecessary, just like this premise was in the first argument. Premises 1 and 3 do not establish premise 4. God doing something, and the existence of suffering alone do not prove that God has a reason for the level of suffering in the world.

Now, an argument that would work is this:
1) God created the world.
2) If God creates something, then he has reason for all of the details of his creation.
3) Therefore, there God has a reason for all of the details in world.
4) There is suffering in the world.
5) Therefore God must have a reason for all of the suffering in the world.

Premise 1 is still not really an argument against an opponent of the existence of God though, and thus in the context of a larger debate will be seen as "begging the question", as it is assuming the point that is in need of being proven.

Given that 91 has failed in constructing a logical argument on 3 occasions suggests that he does not understand logic. These failures are verifiable by any individual who has the inclination to look at his arguments.

I still refuse to talk to you, but if you would post this on the forum, I would appreciate it. I am very much in favor of losing any notion of faith in humanity today, and the notion that someone would qualify a person who would make these mistakes would help towards that end.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 09 Feb 2011, 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Possibly so, and everyone can pick their own ... but the word "dolt" will still be removed from this thread.

Last edited by leejosepho on 09 Feb 2011, 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This is just stupid. Ruveyn appealed to a textbook on questions of definition of terms. The definition of how terms work is not a matter of logic, but rather it is a matter of the commonly used definition of terms, where it is claimed that you are misusing the term "invalid" in this context. Even further, the fallacy of "appeal to authority" which I assume you are getting into, requires that ruveyn claim that his textbooks are infallible. He doesn't have to. However, in practice, an agreement of 3 textbooks that are independently selected is likely high enough to establish something as true.

ok.
good luck on your quest to clean up our dirty mouths. next time, though, could you be less offensively obscene about it? i mean: i know urbandictionary isn't as bad as encyclopediadramatica, but when the definition you link is "A mental ret*d who is clueless not only about current events, but also has the IQ level of a rock. "Dolt" may be the most sophisticated insult in the English language. Dolts commonly populate such stereotypes as jocks, nerds, fruits, bookworms, and dorks." you're doing it wrong. not only that, but now my poor cats have to hear my yammer on about how ridiculous this definition is. you owe them treats.

also: are you saying we should refrain from comments such as "you're a dolt" or just the word "dolt?" because i'm sure there are much more flowery ways to say it.

carry on, though. don't let me interrupt your harvest. i expect the nit crop to be large this season.

I am only asking for civility.


I will gladly change my selected definition to one of Orwell's selection.


Yes.

I will continue to leave "dolt" where it sits in the semantic spectrum in my idiolect - which I knosw and trust better than something that could label itself "urbandictionary" - unless it was compiled by Pope Urban VIII, or is a mistake for urbanedictionary.

As for using it - even when sorely tried and seriously tempted I avoid putting on those here any of the more colorful labels that occur to me, however apropos they seem at the time.

Leave us all be little ladies and gentlemen.

A man of true character ... but you do not have to take a bow, if you would rather not.

Thanks - if it all the same to you I will stay here in the stern.

and i'm only asking for you to pay restitution to my cats in the form of treats.

there's a great quote, from an old prussian general, if i'm not mistaken, about the making of laws and the making of sausage. the gist was that both processes were unappealing but necessary to produce their respective products. we are not important people, here, but we are interested in this process. the ingredients for such "sausage" are politics, philosophy, and (unfortunately) religion.

it's a dirty playground.

@Orwell

AG Said

1) The actual world was created by an omnipotent and perfectly good being.
2) An omnipotent being can actualize any possible world.
3) A perfectly good being always chooses the best outcome from among its choices.
Therefore,
4) The actual world is the best of all possible worlds.

Now, I don't believe that premise 4 is correct, but rather I think that a better world being logically possible is very basic. I think even a small child can understand why 4 seems unreasonable. However, I don't think that premises 2 or 3 are wrong. This means that I must reject premise 1. I think a lot of people will think similarly about the situation as well. However, I would ask if anybody has any thoughts on the situation.

Response

In your last post you only put the first half of the argument in, this is a bit dishonest. AG throughout this thread has clearly wanted us to conclude that this is not the best of all possible worlds. Hence restating the argument to get you there is simply not enough. It requires an extra premiss to get it to a conclusion that this is not the best of all possible worlds. Hence the discussion relating to suffering, missing premises and evidence that refutes the conclusion. Your last post just proves my belief that you are trying to be too clever by half.

@AG

First argument, it's called a caveat and it is often used in informal arguments, it's like showing your working in mathematics. The extra premises does not invalidate the argument formally either.

Second argument, nope all loving necessarily establishes that God would have to have a sufficient reasons. If he was not, he would not be all loving. It's in the logical problem of evil like this AG.

Argument three supposedly makes the same mistake as argument one. I have already addressed this.

@Orwell

We have been working from this argument put forward by AG on page four.

1) God can actualize any world
2) God must actualize the best world.
3) God actualized this world.
4) This is not the best world.

Simple question. Valid or invalid? Let's get moving to some middle ground.